ghostbustersfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Proton Pack
Time to talk Future of this Article Currently this Article doesn't cover parts of the pack. We are looking for references to these parts in the movies, the books, and scripts. A list of fan sites can not count, as it is unofficial. At this point, we need proof that atleast the names are used in something truly official. GBFans has the parts names which we should be able to use as they state "These names have since gone into general usage by most of the fandom and can be found on the following page:" (Link) The (original) list of names for the parts are (link): Note, as we prove or dispprove the list will be edited accordingly. Do not remove a name however, instead use the strike which means its no officially canon. Why do we do that? Well to remember what the name is in the fan community. We will have to still bring up the fan name to make things clear as to what we're talking about. '' Proton Pack Parts *Beamline (Black Wire from HGA) *Booster Tube *Bumper *Clippard Valve *Crank Generator *Cyclotron *Electro-Static Dissipation Assembly *Filler Tubes *Hydrogen Gas Actuator *Injector Lead Wires *Injectors *Ion Regulation Wire (Red Wire on Cyclotron) *Ion Wire #3 (Red Wire from HGA) *Legris Elbow *Shockmount *Motherboard *N-Filter *Power Cell *Primary Power Distributor *Ribbon Cable *Synchronous Generator *(unlicensed) Nuclear AcceleratorMueller, Richard (August 1985). ''Ghostbusters: The Supernatural Spectacular, p. 98. Tor Books, New York NY USA, ISBN 0812585984. (aka: AcceleratorMueller, Richard (August 1985). Ghostbusters: The Supernatural Spectacular, p. 104. Tor Books, New York NY USA, ISBN 0812585984.) Particle Thrower Parts Other names for Particle Thrower (Charged Particle ThrowerMueller, Richard (August 1985). ''Ghostbusters: The Supernatural Spectacular, p. 115. Tor Books, New York NY USA, ISBN 0812585984.,Induction GunMueller, Richard (August 1985). Ghostbusters: The Supernatural Spectacular, p. 99. Tor Books, New York NY USA, ISBN 0812585984.,Induction RifleMueller, Richard (August 1985). Ghostbusters: The Supernatural Spectacular, p. 104. Tor Books, New York NY USA, ISBN 0812585984.).'' *Induction NozzleMueller, Richard (August 1985). Ghostbusters: The Supernatural Spectacular, p. 99. Tor Books, New York NY USA, ISBN 0812585984. MISC Parts/Terms *Charge Indicator Warning lightMueller, Richard (August 1985). Ghostbusters: The Supernatural Spectacular, p. 110. Tor Books, New York NY USA, ISBN 0812585984. *Proton Generator's FieldMueller, Richard (August 1985). Ghostbusters: The Supernatural Spectacular, p. 98. Tor Books, New York NY USA, ISBN 0812585984. Types of Proton Packs I am going to need screen caps addressing the versions of the proton pack. There are for the films (this page only covers the films and not the games). List of packs: *GB1 normal pack *GB1 Hero pack (stunt packs made of foam rubber) *GB2 Mid-grade pack (new packs) *GB2 normal pack mkII (original pack with updates) *GB2 Hero pack References Concerns So here are the things to be concerned with or note: *This Article will be citing GBFans and noted experts prop making fans there. *We will not be taking images from there to give examples. We have to come up with our own. *We can go as far as we want, but don't expect us to beat GBFans at its own game. We're just going to worry about covering the information. I want us to try to lean on anything related to straight canon if possible. (movie related stuff, books, Special effects articles, that sort of thing) Anyways, avoiding relying on GBFans is key to making this article a decent article. I like to figure out what packs are used where, and cite it. Do things not done at GBFans. Be different. Devilmanozzy (Talk Page) 00:27, December 12, 2011 (UTC) Are the Parts of the pack (not official) Fanon? (I moved red links of parts back to this talk page, as I see a debate about if we should be there.) Devilmanozzy (Talk Page) 11:09, December 12, 2011 (UTC) :I'm not sure I agree with adding this. It verges on fanon unless I'm missing something and the parts were talked about in one or more of the movies' script drafts. Mrmichaelt 03:19, December 12, 2011 (UTC) ::They were not. In most cases the names are made up based on either the function suggested in the technobabble, or the parts actually used to make the prop. While we may not have been the ones to arrive at these conclusions, we should try to stick the the communities overall thought on these. As for why even cover the parts to begin with, If you go talk about the proton pack anywhere in the fan community, they will use these terms in conversation. They are a form of Fanon, but Fanon can become a form of accepted fanon. From all accounts the blueprints and descriptions/designs (from fan sites) were used for GB:TVG which itself is debatable canon. It is common talk therefore it has some form of importance, even if it is not canon. Devilmanozzy (Talk Page) 11:09, December 12, 2011 (UTC) :::Side note, If we do this, we should make a template like the spoiler which is Common Fan Terminology. (I use dialog from "Elementary My Dear Winston where Egon explains Sherlock Holmes being there.) (Link) Devilmanozzy (Talk Page) 11:31, December 12, 2011 (UTC) ::::Without a answer from Mrmichaelt, one must assume he doesn't approve. So this debate will sit til time passes by. It could have been a sale if GBFans or other prop websites actually used references when coming up with names instead of "trust us" and "We know whats good for Props, so we can make up whatever we please" type thing. To Prop/Equipment type fans, if you want this you got to fight for it here. I drew a nice collection of reasons to include said part names, but without backing it falls flat. So unless Mrmichaelt or someone else speaks, this is a dead issue. The list of types of proton packs in the movies stands tho, because if you look in scenes in the movies you can sometimes tell a rubber pack from a standard and so forth. Devilmanozzy (Talk Page) 22:56, December 17, 2011 (UTC) :::::The lack of response was a combination of me looking for canonical sources and being focused on the RGB episode articles. I'd be sold on doing a parts section if there was something canonical like in "The Official Training Manual" has schematics for the Ghost Trap or if there was some lost Dan Aykroyd interview where he sat down and explained each part, or being able to read that Omni magazine from the movie montage. Aside from the lines in the movies, they don't go into much detail about making the Proton Packs. I just can't fall behind it because I stick to in-universe details as much as possible. I have nothing against the prop community (much admiration to all the hard work they've done over the years) but I haven't been exposed enough to it to understand the history or rationale of naming the parts. I'm sorry we can't agree on this, I just can't wrap my head around it. Mrmichaelt 05:43, December 18, 2011 (UTC) ::::::Well I have posted a link to the talk page and explained the issue at hand. Lots of GB fan franchises have the Ghostbusters Wiki facebook page liked, so they read my request. The only reason to push this at all, was I saw this to be one of the few areas left in this wiki that appears weak. But that being said, we don't allow fan stories or fan art here either, so it wouldn't to me make sense to add the section. If fans came forward arguing for this, I could bend on it. But right now its a weak argument with not much support here. Devilmanozzy (Talk Page) 06:12, December 18, 2011 (UTC) :::::::I've verified privately that as of right now, Ghost Corps doesn't officially consider the fan created part names as movie canon. Mrmichaelt (talk) 02:44, January 26, 2019 (UTC) Is "negatively charged ectoplasmic entities" fanon? The current version of the page says that the neutrona wand (isn't it supposed to be a 'nutrona' wand?) does its thing by "emitting way-fire positronic ionized stream of proton energy that polarizes with the negatively charged ectoplasmic entities which held them in the stream while active even if they are out of phase with reality". But is the idea that the proton streams can lasso ghosts due to protons being postively-charged and ghosts being negatively-charged something that comes from any official source or just an idea invented by fans? I know Ghostbusters II had the pink slime be made of "negative energy" but in that movie it seems the word "negative" was used in the sense of negative emotions or "bad vibes" rather than actual negative electric charge. Googling for some info on this, I found a fan page called The Proton Lab which gives a similar explanation in terms of ghosts being negatively-charged, according to the site updates page it dates back to 2001 (here's an archived version from 2004) so this could be where many other fans originally got the idea and spread it around...but the Proton Lab page does say at the bottom "Please take note that all of this information is strictly fan-based and isn't official." So is there any official source for this or not? Hypnosifl (talk) 22:36, July 17, 2016 (UTC) :Ghosts tainted with Black Slime are said to be this. So it is from versions of Ghostbusters: The Video Game. Dan Aykroyd has said that the game is canon. Devilmanozzy (Talk Page) 00:17, July 18, 2016 (UTC) ::Does the game specifically suggest they have negative electric charge like protons have positive electric charge, or is it possible they have "negative energy" in the same sense as the pink slime in Ghostbusters II, which like I said in my last comment seems more related to negative emotions than negative charge? Hypnosifl (talk) 02:31, July 18, 2016 (UTC) :::Without trying to go into detail, Black Slime and Mood Slime are from the same place according to the video game (Ivo Shandors Island Slime Labs), and while it isn't explained why mood slime was made, Black Slime is in itself a toxic slime with very negative properties. Devilmanozzy (Talk Page) 06:46, July 18, 2016 (UTC) ::::One, "neutrona" and "nutrona" have been both used over time. ::::Two, the source of positively and negatively charged are definitely from The Video Game which is canon as Devilmanozzy mentioned. If there was anything earlier stated, it probably would be in an interview. ::::Three, you are referring to the "Function and Use" section. We should have to check when and who wrote it. He or she might have elaborated and put their own spin on what's been stated over the decades. And we might have to edit it. ::::Four, as for charge or emotion, the answer is a bit of both. The pink slime utilizes negative energy but to be more specific - negatively charged psychomagnotheric energy. The August 5, 1988 draft of GB2 explained the origins a little, the term "psychmagnetic" preceded "psychomagnotheric" but the idea was it represented a new energy composed of P.K.E. antiparticles. Then something like negative emotions can manifest as the pink slime which is a conduit for the psychomagnotheric energy both negative or positive. The Black Slime, I don't think they specified what kind of negatively charged energy, just it's super saturated with negative energy. ::::Five, if they ever got deep into explaining the proton stream and ghosts as proton vs. electron charges, I don't think so but I think the implication is there enough to suss out some truths to it. I recall they often referred to the packs as unlicensed nuclear accelerators and positron colliders. Then in The Video Game, Ray mentions the proton streams help dissipate the ghost's psychokinetic energy. But again, I don't recall any exhaustive in-depth, in-canon explanations just a few lines here and there. Mrmichaelt (talk) 07:21, July 18, 2016 (UTC)